Responsive media
The recent controversy leading to the closure of renowned British tabloid News of the World has triggered an intense global debate on the “limitation and ambit” of free media and subsequently, an academic debate about the role of free, clean and responsible media.
Given the self-perceived fact that the parameters of free and responsible media can be varied from one school of thought to another and according to the economy, polity, religion and culture of different societies, the global media fraternity was expected to come under serious scrutiny in the aftermath of the controversy sparked by News of the World.
But the global debate is finding no takers in Nepal. Isn’t it a matter of worry that the Nepali media fraternity has not started a debate months after the fall of News of the World?
Even in the West, where media practices are considered advanced in many ways, a debate on clean and responsive media is still alive and kicking. And thus we are forced to ask the question: how often have we, our media organisations, and government bodies, FNJ or Press Council held such a debate? The answer is not very often. Since our media law or practices have do’s and don’ts, the time has come to start a fresh debate on creating a free and clean media atmosphere in Nepal.
Before any public debate, the loud and clear message left behind by the shutdown of News of the World needs to be borne in mind: unethical journalism will not be tolerated no matter how big a media organisation is and how many media one owns. Murdoch, the CEO of Newscorp, has ownership of 175 newspapers worldwide, satellites that deliver TV programmes in five continents and is known to own about one-third of the world’s media.
Nepali media can too learn a few lessons from the fallout of News of the World.
The liberalisation of mass media in Nepal is for freedom of speech and safeguarding democratic practices. The media, after the restoration of democracy, became a fiercely competitive enterprise, proving that the monopoly of the mass media was a thing of past. Competition within and outside both print and broadcast mediums is
indeed necessary for a healthy environment. But amid lack of proper journalistic training and accountability, the risks of unethical practice in media remain high.
The phone-hacking incident can be a lesson for all those in the media industry; that the consequences of yellow journalism are not only detrimental to democratic society, but go in contrast to the very essence of journalism: the search for truth.
Seeking a free, clean and responsible media is not a new demand as such. It is a tool to build a robust and democratic society. Although we have a long history of both healthy and unhealthy media practices, with many outlets hitting the market, it is true that the change in Nepal’s political regime of 1990 brought about a fundamental shift. Media owners have already realised that there is no alternative to competition.
A case in point of how competition leads to media harmonisation is the establishment of Kantipur, which posed a big challenge to traditional media houses. Kantipur has always stood against direct alignment with the government and political parties. Visibly and symbolically, the publication of Kantipur was a major blow to the monopoly of the government over information.
Without a code and independent policy, the media cannot flourish and progress. But at a time when Nepal was waiting to leapfrog from traditional media to new media, the government media policy was directed to “Communication for Development” rather than revamping the media sector in general, and upgrading professional integrity in particular.
There are some guidelines, parameters, codes, ethics and standards which define free and responsible media. Media houses have their own code of ethics for journalists. Certain rules, ethics, code and regulatory bodies have been imposed by governments around the world to suit their political setup. Still, media pundits have been debating the nitty-gritty of the four press theories—authoritarian, libertarian, the Soviet press and social responsibility. Where do we stand here?
Countries have their own press ethics and codes. We too have separate laws and by-laws related to the press code and separate code of journalistic ethics (2003), applicable to all journalists for the protection and the promotion of press freedom, safeguarding and reinforcement of the right to information. Internationals conventions such as UNESCO Declaration on Mass Media (1978), European Convention on Human Rights (1950), American Convention on Human Rights (1969), Helsinki Final Act (1975), Arab Charter of Human Rights (1979) and African Charter of Human and People’s Rights (1986) are also on the list.
We are in the middle of a constitution-drafting process. At such a juncture, as some political parties have been questioning the credibility of free press or are reluctant to the idea of free press, it is the right time to talk about the the prospect of free press in Nepal. What kind of institutional, legal and administrative arrangements we need in the new federal political set up needs to be discussed simultaneously. Along with this, the integrity of the media, the professional ethics of media persons, an environment to build a responsive and clean media atmosphere and capacity building of journalists in mofussil, should be taken into account. It’s high time we dwelt on the roles of media in the federal political setup.
Posted on: 2011-12-25 09:35
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
